Internet Poker is a Stupid Boring Grind

But it sure beats the hell out of a (shudder) JOB, which is also a stupid boring grind only less convenient, more stressful, and less profitable! Three cheers for Internet Poker--long may it live!!! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[FlFishOn]

Don't forget to mention the ethically questionable nature of making a living off of human weakness and addiction.

To the day he died, my father wouldn't tell people I played poker for a living. I'm OK with that.

[thomastem]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget to mention the ethically questionable nature of making a living off of human weakness and addiction.

To the day he died, my father wouldn't tell people I played poker for a living. I'm OK with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always thought poker pros were entertainers getting paid? Granted a small percentage develop a problem like with Alcohol but for the typical casual player they budget money just like when they go to a movie and plan on losing it for a good time.

IMO if we call poker pros low lifes that prey on human weakness then I guess we would have to call all actors and every worker that is employed by an establishment that serves Alcohol the same.

Since Doctors prescribe drugs that people sometimes get addicted to I guess we need to add them too.

[EjnarPik]

Well, at least you weren't a lawyer or insurance agent.

Ejnar Pik, Southern-Docks.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget to mention the ethically questionable nature of making a living off of human weakness and addiction.

To the day he died, my father wouldn't tell people I played poker for a living. I'm OK with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I have said else where it isnt an ethical question its a moral one.

The definition of a compltetly ethical pro poker player is that of aplayer who would never cheat to gain an edge or make $$$$. He confroms to the ethics of his chosen profession.

Wether you should be that player in the first place is the moral question.

[MicroBob]

I dealt BJ at a casino for 8 months. It was really the big, evil corporation that was praying on the weakness of others....but I was certainly an active participant in it....in that I got a pay-check every 2 weeks because of all of the people in the world who have that weakness/addiction and my employers' ability to take advantage of them.


Bartenders would certainly fall into this category as well.

I have bigger problems with some morally questionable folks in many other professions.
There are plenty of amublance-chasing lawyers out there who are certainly not that concerned about the clients they are able to con.
Boiler-room brokers, rip-off car mechanics, doctors who charge insanely high fees to rip off the insurance companies, the insurance companies who refuse to be there for their clients who need them.
Corrupt (or semi-corrupt) politicians...etc etc.
Cut-throat corporate sleeze-bags, virtually anyone in sales.


There are a lot of professions out there that are considered 'proper' by our society but involve just as much (if not more) ripping-off of the weak as poker.

If your Dad had issues with it then that's his right.
But I refuse to feel guilty over the supposed ethical issues involved in poker-playing.
I'm not trying to con them INTO playing with me. They KNOW ahead of time that I will be trying to win their money (such is the object of the game) just as I know that they will be trying to take my money.
It's not my fault if they suck and don't bother to study the game. I could TELL them to read Sklansky or SSHE if they want to get better and they still wouldn't listen to me. Their arrogance and ignorance is not my fault or problem.

Additionally, the bad players are going to lose their money anyway. If there were ZERO good players to take it away from them then it would primarily get passed back and forth across the table and the house would take in more of it.


If there's someone sitting next to you that you're worried about because you think they are about to spend their very last dollar you are free to try to do something about it if you think you can without getting punched in the mouth.

But in the general nature of poker where I assume most of the players are adults and treat their money with some degree of responsibility I can't consider myself to blame for their terrible play.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
But it sure beats the hell out of a (shudder) JOB, which is also a stupid boring grind only less convenient, more stressful, and less profitable! Three cheers for Internet Poker--long may it live!!! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

here here!

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget to mention the ethically questionable nature of making a living off of human weakness and addiction.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you talking about McDonalds? Pepsi? Harrahs? Tobacco?

This may be better discussed in the Psych Forum, but I think that weakness and addiction are certainly not at the top of the list as to why people lose money at poker. Some just like to gamble, knowing that they probably won't win. That's the price of the thrill of hitting a big win once in a while. Pride and ignorance have to be high on the list too, often in combination. This would be people who don't know how to play, while thinking they are big-time gamblers.

I think that the really weak and addicted tend to play slots and especially video poker. In any case, poker is a game between consenting adults, and there is no ethical question in my mind.

[surfdoc]

[ QUOTE ]
doctors who charge insanely high fees to rip off the insurance companies

[/ QUOTE ]

I was following your line of reasoning right up until you made this point. While it certainly sounds good, it doesn't really work out like this. You see, it makes very little difference what we charge. All that matters when dealing with insurance companies is what they will pay. And, they won't pay "insanely high fees". In fact, they usually hold the honest hard workind doc hostage for some amount lower than what the services are worth. The insurance company will then simply stop paying the doc at all if the doc won't take the contracted (low) fee. Then, since the doc will no longer be a "preferred provider" he will no longer be able to see any of that companies patients.

Thus, maybe you should consider who is doing the ripping off here because clearly it is the insurance company and very rarely the doc.

[Alobar]

excellent post